If you play better competition every time you win, and weaker competition every time you lose (i.e. same rating),
20 wins = 40 wins + 20 losses.
Better than Elo, Glicko and Truskill
Sort:
@luckisK
What is your profession? How do you make money?
Elo was a professional physicist. Elo is like Cesius.
You are going to come up with something that is better than a professional physicist?
I don't think so.
Bookmakers will immediately realize it.
Oh please. Bookmaking is easy. You just get equal numbers to bet on each side and take a percentage.
Exactly like a roulette wheel with a 0.
Bet red or black, the bookmaker wins. No matter what Wesley Snipes tells you.
Elo, Glicko, and Trueskill ratings in essence they count wins-losses, as in average you earn 8 points for a win and you lose 8 points for a loss. This is wrong since e.g. a team or a player that has 20 wins in 20 games is better than a team or a player that has 40 wins and 20 losses in 60 games.
Hmm. As far I can remember, it is 16 (or 15) points for a win or a loss. I remembered it for Yahoo, and I use Elo for my tennis Meetup.
https://3dkingdoms.com/chess/elo.htm
as in average you earn 8 points for a win and you lose 8 points for a loss.
Let's change it to 16. The concept still remains the same.
as in average you earn 16 points for a win and you lose 16 points for a loss.
First and foremast, the Elo rating system is not linear. It is logarithmic.
You win 16 points
1. If both your ratings are the same
2. Only once
3. You win again, you win 15 points, again 14 points, again 13 points (I'm simplifying it, but you get the point.)
Wining 16 games:
+16, +15, +14, +13 . . . +1
Wining 32 games and then losing 16 games
+16, +15, +14, +13 . . . +1 [It stops at 16]
But losing the first game, you lose
-32, then -31, -30
Off the bat, that's equal to losing 16 straight.
The Elo equation is correct. It is the recent outcomes that count more. Look at MMA wins and losses and see who gets cut.